Kai Li, Heinz Rüdiger, Rocco Haase, Tjalf Ziemssen
Abstract
Objective: As the multiple trigonometric regressive spectral (MTRS) analysis is extraordinary in its ability to analyze short local data segments down to 12 s, we wanted to evaluate the impact of the data segment settings by applying the technique of MTRS analysis for baroreflex sensitivity (BRS) estimation using a standardized data pool. Methods: Spectral and baroreflex analyses were performed on the EuroBaVar dataset (42 recordings, including lying and standing positions). For this analysis, the technique of MTRS was used. We used different global and local data segment lengths, and chose the global data segments from different positions. Three global data segments of 1 and 2 min and three local data segments of 12, 20, and 30 s were used in MTRS analysis for BRS. Results: All the BRS-values calculated on the three global data segments were highly correlated, both in the supine and standing positions; the different global data segments provided similar BRS estimations. When using different local data segments, all the BRS-values were also highly correlated. However, in the supine position, using short local data segments of 12 s overestimated BRS compared with those using 20 and 30 s. In the standing position, the BRS estimations using different local data segments were comparable. There was no proportional bias for the comparisons between different BRS estimations. Conclusion: We demonstrate that BRS estimation by the MTRS technique is stable when using different global data segments, and MTRS is extraordinary in its ability to evaluate BRS in even short local data segments (20 and 30 s). Because of the non-stationary character of most biosignals, the MTRS technique would be preferable for BRS analysis especially in conditions when only short stationary data segments are available or when dynamic changes of BRS should be monitored.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 January 2018.
All research outputs
#15,019,716
of 24,288,533 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#5,354
of 14,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,703
of 449,057 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#115
of 304 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,288,533 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,897 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 449,057 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 304 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.
